Audi TT vs. BMW M Roadster vs. Honda S2000 vs. Porsche Boxster


Adam
02-13-2001, 05:07 PM
sa, which do you think! I think the M Roadster is just a great bulldog, which is awesome, until the svelte S2000 came along. WOOOOO be still my beating heart.

igor@af
02-13-2001, 05:20 PM
This is a hard choice to make, to me, all of em are unattractive :p
But I'd probably take the TT.

pontiac_ws6
02-13-2001, 05:50 PM
I'd probably take the S2000, and supercharge it. I like the beamer too, I'd take any one of them.

Adam
02-14-2001, 04:02 PM
IGOR!!! I'm ashamed in you. :)

texan
02-15-2001, 05:49 AM
Since you didn't say Boxster S, it's definitely an arguement. The Audi I throw out right away, since my drive in one wasn't impressive. Not enough power considering it's price, the awd didn't seem to really improve things (just remove some fun factor), and the interior is like sitting in a cave when the top is up. The chassis tuning is geared towards safety, not serious driving, so it's not my kind of ride at this price level.

The Beemer has a nice torquey engine, but it just doesn't come alive with revs the way I like. Don't get me wrong, I like effortless speed, but the motor is almost too smooth in it's delivery for my liking, as though it lost it's soul somewhere along the engineering path (a fault I think most BMW motors have, but I'm virtually alone in this regard). The chassis isn't at the level of the Boxster or S2000 either, but it's certainly fun to drive, with tail out action only a throttle blip away. It is one of the better looking cars here IMO, having the classic long nose/ short rear deck the original roadsters must possess. Make this a solid second choice, tied with the Boxster in overall appeal and performance for the money.

The Boxster's styling doesn't suit me, it's nose is completely devoid of character and the interior is below German standards. The engine needs more power (addressed fully in the Boxster S), but the suspension is damn near perfection. Nothing in this class has quite the reflexes of the S2000, but this one has better manners combined with nearly as agile handling. If it was about 10k cheaper, it would deifnitely win.

The S2000 needs a bigger engine by about .5 liters and probably a couple more cylinders, if it's to be truly world class. It should also have a proper glass rear window (cars costing nearly 10k less have rear glass), and the damn dirty digital guage cluster MUST go. But that's about it. Some may fault it's looks, but certainly the beauty of this car lies in the drive. No current car sold in America has quite the agility of this one, and when a competent driver wrings it's neck it rewards like few others. Really, the only unfortunate thing about this car is that you must drive it like you stole it to think it anything special. It feels as docile and reliable as a Civic when driven at anything other than 10/10th's, and does the daily grind a bit too good for a true performance vehicle. Credit Honda for this one, a common genetic trait apparent in anything they've made (aside from perhaps the "R" cars). In terms of performance for the dollar and plain ol' track worthiness, nothing beats it right now. As soon as they address the lack of torque, the car will be a hard one to argue with at the track.

Just my 02 cents ;)

Gordon
02-15-2001, 04:03 PM
Why did you take the M roadster to this comparison. The M roadster is a supercar compared to the other ones. But anyway I would go for the Boxster

Adam
02-17-2001, 03:58 PM
because the M Roads is better then the Z3, and the z3 is too low for this competition. I agree the digital gauge must go, but it's still an awesome car. Why doesn't anyone say the M Roaster?

ichthus
02-19-2001, 03:17 PM
4. The Audi TT is what I believe to be a perfect car for your wife. No offense to any ladies out there :) It's beautiful, and any garage would be lucky to contain one...but it lacks the performance to really get me excited. Even the 220hp Quattro is just a little below par. In short, I'd love to own one but don't want to claim it as my own...call it a male ego thing.

3. Porsche. Few names draw such respect. In the Boxster I see a car for my neighbors to own :) Nice to have on the block but too plain and quite nearly below the standards of most Porsches. I'd rather find myself a nice 928.

2. Without doubt, the Bimmer is the obvious and logical choice here. It has the name, the style, the performance. I don't like it. The body is aging and the whole car just reminds me of an old MG for some reason. I can picture them in 20 years as such. I can't really fault the car, but it just seems to lack character for me...or perhaps it lacks my character.

1. The Honda S2000 is exactly the car I want. I drive every car as hard as possible 90% of the time anyways, just because I enjoy it so much. I love hitting the redline a couple times a day just because. The styling isn't overly provocative, but it's perfectly balanced with great detail. The interior is wonderfully snug and just fits me perfect. The shiftthrow is amazingly short and simple. But please, no red leather...

enzo@af
02-19-2001, 06:22 PM
M Roadster...

I hate the looks of the TT, don't really get much out of the S2000. So, it comes down to a battle between the boxster and the Bimmer. Well, I'd prefer a mid-engined car for it's handling, but I prefer the looks of the M roadster. Besides...my girlfriend likes Z3's, so I'd have to take it for her.

C-MURDER
02-19-2001, 11:09 PM
I'll take the S2000. I just love the way it looks, and it seems like a car that you can drive really hard and still be reliable.

Bean Bandit
02-20-2001, 08:13 AM
I'd take the M Roadster (or better the M Coupe:D). It has plenty of power and although it's older than the others it, without a question, can compet with -em:)

gang$tarr
03-01-2001, 09:49 AM
okay, the audi is ASS slow, and heavy
the porsche is okay, but it's slow too

for me it would be the M or the S2000, this is tough

i think overall i'd go with the M, just because it's fast, and i still like the styling, it's evil

The S2000 interior isn't too nice either

R33
03-01-2001, 10:45 PM
The Audi TT looks really nice but snail paced! Would buy it for my wife!
The Beamer, like any other Beamer is plain boring! I am with you Texan when you said that the smooth delivery is way tooooooo smooth. Docile as a cat on morphine!! Would rather drive a Honda Accord or a Camry!! I mean a roadster should be fun. Docile is not fun! It's sleep inducing.
The Boxster looks nice too. No power though. Handles quite well until you push it to the limit! To me, the Audi,Beamer and Boxter are all overrated and overpriced!
The 2000 would be my choice here. Engine is very responsive although it could be better. Handles superbly. But still wouldn't buy it!!
Would buy a TVR instead!

Gordon
03-02-2001, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Gordon
Why did you take the M roadster to this comparison. The M roadster is a supercar compared to the other ones. But anyway I would go for the Boxster

What about Z3 2.8

Jay!
03-24-2001, 05:52 PM
As long as we're not drag racing or driving in a big oval, I'll take the S2000. If the ratio of curves to straights is equal or better, the S2000's "point and shoot" handling would tear up the track.

VTEC V6
03-24-2001, 06:06 PM
its down to the M roadster and the S2000

and the s2000 is like 15k+ cheaper
and it looks way better too

i would take that then add a comptech SC and some other goodies to improve handling and styling then you'd whoop an M roadster and look better too inside and out!

BRABUS
04-11-2001, 03:15 PM
No comparison here. M roadster all the way although it wasn't quite fair to compare this car to the others. I've said it before, tuned cars cannot be compared to factory cars. For example, you cannot compare the following:

BMW M5 Vs. MB E430
MB E55 AMG Vs. BMW 540i
BMW M3 Vs. MB C320

...and so on.

Adam
04-11-2001, 04:13 PM
yeah, but the Z3 needs to be tuned to keep up w/ the Boxster

texan
04-11-2001, 04:19 PM
Brabus- I see no reason why you can't compare the S2000 with the M Roadster, and neither do any of the automotive press. They come out almost dead equal in every measured performance test, with the rolling starts and top gear acceleration runs going slightly to the M, and the handling tests going to the S2000. However, the S2000 is over 200 lbs lighter, has a MUCH better suspension design and setup, a more engaging engine (possibly the most engaging engine ever), the best transmission, better weight distribution, a shorter length but larger width, and plenty of upgrade potential left for still increased handling through larger tires.

So having said all that, what about the M Roadster is so special here, other than the semi-trailing arm rear suspension that somehow made it's way onto a $43k car? I mean seriously, if you know suspension designs, you would know that layout was abandoned years ago for maximum performance machines, as it has certain basic design flaws making for unreliable handling traits (which is why BMW themselves ditched the design after the E30's, except for the roadster where they wanted to keep costs down at the expense of performance). I could bring up other points, but the final one is just that BMW's tuning efforts with this car remain more towards sales and looks than ultimate performance. Of course you do get that nice illuminated shift pattern, maybe that's where the other $10k worth of car went ;).

BRABUS
04-11-2001, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by texan
Brabus- I see no reason why you can't compare the S2000 with the M Roadster, and neither do any of the automotive press. They come out almost dead equal in every measured performance test, with the rolling starts and top gear acceleration runs going slightly to the M, and the handling tests going to the S2000. However, the S2000 is over 200 lbs lighter, has a MUCH better suspension design and setup, a more engaging engine (possibly the most engaging engine ever), the best transmission, better weight distribution, a shorter length but larger width, and plenty of upgrade potential left for still increased handling through larger tires.

So having said all that, what about the M Roadster is so special here, other than the semi-trailing arm rear suspension that somehow made it's way onto a $43k car? I mean seriously, if you know suspension designs, you would know that layout was abandoned years ago for maximum performance machines, as it has certain basic design flaws making for unreliable handling traits (which is why BMW themselves ditched the design after the E30's, except for the roadster where they wanted to keep costs down at the expense of performance). I could bring up other points, but the final one is just that BMW's tuning efforts with this car remain more towards sales and looks than ultimate performance. Of course you do get that nice illuminated shift pattern, maybe that's where the other $10k worth of car went ;).

What I was getting was that the S2000 would be better compared to the BMW Z3 instead. If you take a look at the specs of the M Roadster and compare them to the S2000, you will see that the M Roadster holds the advantage. I think a couple others mentioned my point in their posts as well.

texan
04-11-2001, 09:34 PM
but again Brabus, holds the advantage where? In torque output and tire size maybe, in everything else the S2000 is it's equal or better. And costs $10k less in the process. The S2000 has been in heads up comparos before, and in the most recent it bested the Porsche Boxter S and the BMW M Roadster on a very fast road course that favors higher power motors. It also pulled nearly identical acceleration times to the fastest car there, never being more than .1 seconds off the pace of the Beemer (and the S2000 actually had a higher 1/4 mile trap speed). Sorry, but I just don't see how the M Roadster is in a different league in terms of anything other than price. Show me how and maybe I'll be more open to the idea, because telling me how many other people feel the same as you doesn't make any of them right.

BRABUS
04-12-2001, 01:12 AM
Let's take a look shall we?

M Vs. S2000

Engine: 3.2L Vs. 2.0L
HP: 315@7400 Vs. 240@8300
Torque: 251@4900 Vs. 153@7500
Top speed: 137mph Vs. 145mph
0-60: 5.6s Vs. 6.8s

Now the S2000 beats the M in the top speed category, just slightly however. The 0-60 times aren't as close as you mentioned as the S2000 is 1.2s behind. As for the horse power and torque, the S2000 loses again in this category. I don't know what tests you're looking at but it seems to me that the M roadster wins this fight.

BTW, are you admin? If not, how are you at 5 stars with less than 100 posts? :)

texan
04-12-2001, 02:45 AM
Well possibly in Canada the M Roadster has 315hp, but in America it's 240 and that's what I was going off of (I honestly thought it was 240hp for all of North America). Also, according to R&T's September 2000 comparo of the cars (Audi TT Roadster vs. Porsche Boxster S vs. Honda S2000 vs. BMW M Roadster), the S2000 recorded 0-60 blasts in 5.5 seconds, whereas the M Roadster did it in 5.4 seconds. The quater mile run was dispatched in 14.0 seconds @ 99.5 mph in the M, while the S2000 did it in 14.1 @ 99.6. In other words, the cars are virtually dead even if you can launch them both equally well (admittedly a harder task in the S2000). Meanwhile the S2000 did the 700 ft. slalom at 65.9 mph, while the M could only muster a 63.0 effort (worst of all the cars tested). The S2000 also bested every car in the comparo with a 56.80 second run around the Buttonwillow Raceway, while the M was only capable of a third place 57.72 second run. Running nearly a second faster on a fast road course is not that easy, so it's obvious which car is quicker when driven by the same driver at 10/10ths. At any rate, I think both cars are worthy of a head's up comparo, and I think the S2000 is the clear winner whenyou are looking for the most performance for your dollar. Hell, let's see an M Roadster keep up with an S2000 after you spend that 10k you saved modifying the car!

Ps- Yeah, I'm a moderator, that's how I got the title and 5 stars :). Peace!

enzo@af
04-12-2001, 03:30 AM
Well, hp numbers depend on the year. The new (2001) model has 315 (same engine as in the @46 M3), but the slightly older models still only had the 240 (although slightly more scant in weight...giving it a .1 second edge in 0-60!).

As for the S2K getting a 0-60 that quick...I'm really surprised. I've never ever seen a time less than 6.0 seconds, most have been around 6.2ish, which would be about a full second more than the '98 M roadster and .9 seconds slower than the 2001 M.

But, I know the M has worse handling (lower lateral accel and not the perfect 50/50 weight distribution of the S2000). But, M for me :)

BRABUS
04-12-2001, 11:31 AM
Hmmm...Perhaps in the comparison, the old M Roadster was put against the S2000. I was looking at the specs for the new 2001 M in which I thought it would beat the S2000. The 0-60 in 5.5 is impressive though. I wonder why it's such a big difference from my spec (I got that off carpoint). Any how, glad we figured that out.

BTW, can I be a mod? :D :D

Heep
04-12-2001, 09:26 PM
overall...

4. Porsche Boxster. It's ugly.

3. Honda S2000. You need to keep the engine above 7000 if you want a smile, thus drastically reducing gas mileage (like that matters when burning around), wearing your engine, and requiring constant shifting (which is fun, I just don't like HAVING to shift)

2. BMW M roadster. I don't like the clamshell hood. IMO, Beemers need the kidney grills either flat or going in at the bottom, not out. Performance wise, I'd take the BMW in a second. If this was M coupe, it would be so far ahead in my comparo that it would be...ahead. :confused:

1. Audi TT. But only if we're talking coupe, the roadster sucks. It has flawless looks to die for (IMO), and it has 200 lb-ft of torque flat from 2000 RPM straight to 5500RPM. Now that's an engine. Plus the interior is nicer than any other I've ever seen in my life.

performance...
4. Porsche Boxster. It's ugly.

3. Audi TT. Even with that magnificent torque curve (plateau), it's a little mushy.

2. Honda S2000. Nice speed, but I also haven't seen any 0-60 times of less than 6.0 (stock). And you have to basically maintain redline to keep a smile on your face.

1. BMW M roadster. VROOM.

styling...
4. Porsche Boxster. It's ugly.

3. BMW M roadster. I hate the clamshell hood, but I love the back, especially with the flared fenders and the new roll bars behind the headrests.

2. Honda S2000. Looks great from all angles, especially the back with the neato taillights and the big twin pipes. Looks good from the front because of the massively flared fenders and angled nose.

1. Audi TT (coupe only). A masterpiece of design.

flylwsi
04-14-2001, 04:16 PM
road and track had a comparo

the boxster s won, s2k second, then m roadster, then the tt quattro...

BRABUS
04-14-2001, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by flylwsi
road and track had a comparo

the boxster s won, s2k second, then m roadster, then the tt quattro...

It was perhaps the old M roadster. The new 2001 packs more punch than the old.

enzo@af
04-16-2001, 11:32 AM
The "Battle of the Brands" Road and Track lists the S2000 with a 4.9 sec 0-60! Is that a typo?

In the back it gives it a 5.5 second rating. That still sounds too fast, but not so unbelievable.

Heep
04-16-2001, 11:37 AM
yeah, I'd say that's a typo.

BTW, Enzo, is your friend with the 550 selling it? There is a titanium/bordeaux 550 with a Tubi exhaust for sale in duPont Registry, smoe guy named Bob selling it.

enzo@af
04-16-2001, 03:00 PM
The guy I know is named Duke, but that could be a nickname. Is it being sold from the San Diego area?

Porsche
04-16-2001, 03:53 PM
WTF? The Porsche Boxster isn't ugly, the Aztek is ugly.

Adam
04-16-2001, 04:07 PM
where did u get those figures? a little bit off..

6.2 seconds for S2k, and others are off...

Heep
04-16-2001, 09:02 PM
Area code 303. Wherever that is.

Bean Bandit
04-17-2001, 08:13 AM
As you guys have some problems with numbers I'll help you out:D The M Roadster has 321 hp. The 240 you found are the regular 3.0l Roadster(not an M). The stats for the Roadster go down to a 1.9l engine with 140hp. These are Europeans stats for a Europena car:bandit:

flylwsi
04-17-2001, 12:47 PM
no offense, but we are mostly in the u.s. and your euro #s arent goin to do much here, except make us all jealous of the 60hp diff...
thanks though

gang$tarr
04-17-2001, 01:00 PM
I have that road & track, and i'm positive it didn't say S2000 4.9s 0-60
because i clearly remember them sayin the M Roadster is the fastest of the bunch, they said the closest car to the M Roadster was the S2000 which was only .1s off

Z06Lover
05-02-2001, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by gang$tarr
I have that road & track, and i'm positive it didn't say S2000 4.9s 0-60
because i clearly remember them sayin the M Roadster is the fastest of the bunch, they said the closest car to the M Roadster was the S2000 which was only .1s off
The accidently put the nsx's 0-60 numbers. If you check the nsx it is the same. The S2000 will run 0-60 in 5.5 if you get on it right, but if you don't ....it's more like a 7 sec car!! :)

gang$tarr
05-05-2001, 12:36 AM
yeah but you could say that about any car, duh
that you have to get on it right

enzo@af
05-05-2001, 04:40 AM
Of course you could say that about any car....but even more so with the S2000.

Adam
05-07-2001, 04:58 PM
if ya look in the comment thingy page of RnT, they fix those errors:cool:

TatII
01-06-2002, 07:14 PM
i also had another old CAR and Driver and they had the S2000's 0-60 in 5.8 second. the only car to top it was the M roadster at 5.5 seconds.

Z06Lover
01-06-2002, 07:50 PM
both motor trend and road and track now have 0-60 as 5.3 secs for the S2000. Both magazines have issues with getting good 0-60 times because they didn't rev it to like 6.5k and dump it. The second time they tested the car they did just that.

Euro19
01-16-2002, 01:24 AM
I strongly think the S2000 doesnīt compares to neither of these, arenīt we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so donīt be selfish that isnīt nice.
Anywise Iīll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.

texan
01-16-2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Euro19
I strongly think the S2000 doesnīt compares to neither of these, arenīt we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so donīt be selfish that isnīt nice.
Anywise Iīll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.

You MUST be kidding. Have you ever driven an SLK? What about an S2000? As far as which is the "driver's car" and which is the "wealthy old woman's car who wants to feel young again car", there's no arguing involved. The SLK is a poser, plain and simple. Sure they finally gave it some power with the V6 and even threw in a stick shift, but it's clear the car was never designed with real sporting intentions. The S2000 is spartan and cramped inside, it's simple and unimposing, and it's the definition of driving purity at it's core. The engine is a wonder (though admittedly low on torque), the brakes and suspension are beyond reproach, and the chassis is as stiff as roadsters get. And to top it off it costs less than 35k US, which is a serious performance bargain as far as roadsters go.

Choose the SLK if you like, but drive both on a hot road before posting here.

F20C
01-16-2002, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Euro19
I strongly think the S2000 doesnīt compares to neither of these, arenīt we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so donīt be selfish that isnīt nice.
Anywise Iīll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.

So S2000 is not a sports roadster in your mind?

Z06Lover
01-16-2002, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Euro19
I strongly think the S2000 doesnīt compares to neither of these, arenīt we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so donīt be selfish that isnīt nice.
Anywise Iīll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.
obviously you have never driven either the mercedes or the S2000. Cuz, if you had...you would know the mercedes is a touring car and the S2000 is a pure sports car.

gang$tarr
01-16-2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Euro19
I strongly think the S2000 doesnīt compares to neither of these, arenīt we talking about some sport roadsters with pedigree?? Instead of the S2000 you should have put the Mercedes SLK. Shame on you.
And I think AF is oriented to the whole comunity of car lovers, not only USA so donīt be selfish that isnīt nice.
Anywise Iīll go with the Porsche, I kinda like the TT.

hahah LOL!! the S2000 fits in perfectly with those, i think the Audi TT doesn't belong because of it's shit performance
Same price range, with the S2000 giving a little more value. The S2000 is a roadster like the rest. The S2000 is faster than almost all of them (and it's only 0.1s 0-60mph slower then the fastest)

I really don't see how it would not fit in

Euro19
01-16-2002, 09:26 PM
Yes I know the S2000 fits perfectly if you see it from a performance angle, of course is a Sports cars, never said it wasnīt, is just that for the price range and brand (fancy), you would usually only compare Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche and Acura.

gang$tarr
01-16-2002, 10:34 PM
The S2000 is in the same price range as those other cars, it's only a little bit less

texan
01-16-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Euro19
Yes I know the S2000 fits perfectly if you see it from a performance angle, of course is a Sports cars, never said it wasnīt, is just that for the price range and brand (fancy), you would usually only compare Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche and Acura.

I guess I can see your point, but let's define what a comparison worth talking about should be: comparing two like cars (in design and ability) which compete with one another for market share on value and performance. Basically, what do you get for your dollar in terms of quality, reliability, performance and subjective likes/dislikes? And in that vein, the S2000 deserves to be listed in ANY comparison of roadsters.

BTW, Acura is just a name Honda drummed up to keep buyers like you from focusing on the Honda nameplate instead of the car you are buying. I wouldn't care if the S2000 was made by Yugo, it's a damn great car and a soild value in it's market segment. Buyers who spend money on a nameplate and not the car are sorely out of touch with why 95% of people buy cars.

F20C
01-17-2002, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Euro19
Yes I know the S2000 fits perfectly if you see it from a performance angle, of course is a Sports cars, never said it wasnīt, is just that for the price range and brand (fancy), you would usually only compare Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche and Acura.

You would need to cough up the dough for SLK32 AMG, M Roadster (315 hp) and Boxter S to have a better comparison from performance angle. All the lesser offering are not worth the time.

Add your comment to this topic!